Voices from the Arab Press: Hezbollah plays up CNN interview

Hezbollah plays up CNN interview

An-Nahar, Lebanon, July 18

A few days ago, CNN aired an interview with Ibrahim Moussawi, a Lebanese parliament member from the “Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc,” Hezbollah’s political arm. In it, Moussawi warned Israel against an invasion of Lebanon. 

Up until this point, the event was relatively unremarkable. However, immediately following the interview, Hezbollah’s propaganda machine exploited the interview, bestowing political and military significance upon it. Observers might have thought that Hezbollah had not only reached Jerusalem but had also hoisted its yellow flags over the White House. 

Moussawi defended his decision to interview with an American news channel, claiming that the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation reshaped the consciousness of the American public, forcing US media to adapt to these new realities to retain credibility with its audience. 

What Moussawi did not explicitly state was filled in by the propaganda machine, which suggested that the US, which had once labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization, chose to give airtime to a senior member of this organization. 

In light of growing complaints about its significant human losses and the challenging environment in which it operates, Hezbollah has attempted to craft an image of victory. This effort is purportedly directed by the party’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah. 

To this end, Hezbollah’s propaganda apparatus systematically exaggerates events, brushing aside all facts. By perpetuating this image, Hezbollah aims to undermine critics who argue that the organization’s actions merely serve Iran’s interests at Lebanon’s expense.

Nasrallah spearheads this campaign. Listeners to his speeches might momentarily believe that Israel’s primary reason for wanting to cease aggression in Gaza is to alleviate pressure from Hezbollah. Those who delve into the party’s rhetoric might assume the Israel Air Force is intimidated, refraining from dispatching planes to Lebanon out of fear of Hezbollah’s advanced surface-to-air missile capabilities. 

In this context, Moussawi’s interview with CNN has been imbued with “mythical” significance. Yet, Hezbollah’s propaganda machine conveniently ignores several crucial facts. Just days before the US invasion of Afghanistan, CNN dispatched a team for an extensive interview with the Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. Subsequent events revealed this was neither an “American capitulation” to Al-Qaeda nor a sign of US surrender.

Similarly, before the Iraq invasion, CBS conducted a wide-ranging interview with then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. This interview did not signal an American desire to reconcile with Hussein nor an acknowledgment of his military prowess but rather preceded his downfall. 

There are numerous such examples, too many to enumerate here. Indeed, if we were to extrapolate theories from these American television precedents, it would appear that any openness to an “enemy” is often a precursor to a decisive strike. This suggests that Hezbollah’s attempt to dramatize one of its representatives being featured on CNN is fundamentally flawed. Historical precedents starkly contradict the narrative Hezbollah is trying to construct. – Fares Khachan

Will Trump gain momentum following Butler Rally?

Al-Jarida, Kuwait, July 17

The shooting at former US president Donald Trump’s election rally in Pennsylvania on July 13 week reverberated through the media faster than the bullet that grazed his ear. The media relentlessly dissected the details and interpretations of the “failed assassination attempt” that Trump survived, casting a spotlight on the ensuing political drama within the Republican party, oscillating between unity and division among its voters.

Scenes of blood during critical events attract media attention, like sharks to chum. This incident was no exception, drawing sharp media scrutiny to gauge its impact on the Republican party’s endorsement and support of Trump while also delineating the stark contrast between Trump and President Joe Biden. 

The key question looms: Will Trump manage to reclaim the White House following these events? Trump has emerged as both a hero and a victim. Biden reached out to Trump to check on his health, denouncing political violence in a gesture befitting a statesman. However, Biden has struggled to communicate his administration’s accomplishments effectively amid frequent gaffes, such as mistakenly referring to Zelensky as Putin. 

Now, Trump faces the herculean task of convincing voters of his commitment to protecting democracy. Social media has exacerbated the political divide, as it invariably does during election cycles. The polarization brought about by a figure like Trump, who defies conventional presidential behavior, has further inflamed the political landscape. Some Republicans are attempting to shift the blame for political violence onto Democrats, a label previously attributed to the far Right. 

In a surprising move, Trump selected J.D. Vance as his running mate – an erstwhile critic who had lambasted him in numerous articles. Vance, a Republican senator, was previously dubbed by the media as the man with the angry countenance. He authored the Washington Post piece titled “Trump’s dictatorship is imminent” and penned a novel titled Hillbilly Elegy, which delves into his working-class upbringing and the socioeconomic challenges he faced. 

Today, Vance stands as Trump’s vice presidential pick, backed by his wife, a distinguished legal scholar of Indian descent. This choice might just bridge the divide within the Republican party and bolster Trump’s acceptance. 

The firing of the bullet and the dynamics of the US presidential race have triggered a flurry of predictions and analyses concerning the future of regional powers and conflict zones, as well as the personal and health profiles of the presidential candidates. These factors will undoubtedly influence not only the election results but also the decision-making process in the forthcoming period. 

– Nada Suleiman Al-Mutawa

A gap in Egypt's women's movement

Al-Watan, Egypt, July 19

Western standards for “women’s empowerment” do not consistently succeed in all contexts when applied to Egyptian women. The criteria may hold value if the aim is to empower Egyptian women by acknowledging their crucial social roles and helping them advance without neglecting their responsibilities.

Whether they are primary breadwinners, financial partners, or managing households; whether they are daughters, wives, mothers, or sisters, Egyptian women must navigate a distinct path. 

In this context, three stories of pioneering women who championed women’s issues in their individual ways come to mind. The first story concerns the late Nawal El Saadawi, an Egyptian feminist writer and activist whose influence on educated women seeking liberation cannot be understated, regardless of whether one agrees with her views.

El Saadawi’s advocacy, often characterized by a rebellious streak, struck a chord with Egyptian women eager for change. I once heard El Saadawi recount that the illiterate women she encountered in her village of Kafr Tahla were more receptive to her ideas than their educated urban counterparts. She attributed this openness to the fact that these village women had not been tainted by the orthodox and conservative interpretations often propagated through religious texts, outdated stories, or ancient events. 

In contrast, educated women might absorb these through reading or media, further reinforced by teachings in mosques and churches. To El Saadawi, uneducated women were unencumbered by the restrictive notions propagated by others, free from the male-dominated ideas that didn’t consider their immediate interests. Such perspectives aim to integrate women into contemporary society, rescuing them from marginalization and involving them in meaningful work. 

Instead, these notions cling to outdated perceptions, ignoring that society has moved forward, leaving behind many once-solid opinions. 

The second story comes from writer Amina Shafiq, an advocate deeply involved with Egyptian civil society organizations. On numerous visits to the Egyptian countryside, she engaged with peasant women and educated girls. Shafiq recounted with humor how urban women would visit rural areas to teach women about their rights, often without understanding their basic needs – such as the simple yet crucial issue of sanitation. 

Shafiq expressed amazement at how these women coped without toilets in their homes, lasting until nightfall to relieve themselves in the fields. This was in stark contrast to their men, who could do so in the open during daylight. Although this harsh reality has improved in most villages, it serves as a stark reminder of the disconnect between women’s organizations’ agendas and the real needs of women on the ground. 

The third account involves Dr. Hoda Badran, a sociology professor at Helwan University who founded the Arab Women’s League and later led the Egyptian Women’s Union. Badran’s commitment extended beyond theoretical education; she also addressed practical needs. 

In North and South Sinai, she initiated small projects, like embroidery and shrimp peeling, providing local women with income-generating opportunities. Bedouin women, under her guidance, produced goods that not only imbued them with a sense of purpose but also helped meet their families’ needs. 

These stories collectively underscore a significant gap in the women’s movement in Egypt: a failure to account for the unique societal and living conditions of Egyptian women. This oversight is a flaw that needs immediate rectification. Women’s organizations must emphasize practical solutions alongside theoretical frameworks to genuinely improve women’s conditions in Egypt, especially given the country’s urgent need for such improvements. – Ammar Ali Hassan

UN Security Council Resolution 2735 and Gaza Crisis

Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, July 18

The Gaza crisis has persisted in a bloody, destructive spiral for over nine months. Amid this ongoing turmoil, intensive efforts have aimed to broker a multi-stage agreement to establish a permanent ceasefire, facilitate a gradual exchange of hostages and prisoners, provide substantial humanitarian aid, and rebuild the Gaza Strip.

The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2735, though it is far from a panacea due to its reliance on ambiguous language and the lack of strong interconnections among its three phases. Furthermore, the resolution fails to address accountability for the destruction inflicted on the Gaza Strip or for subsequent failures to meet obligations. This omission is particularly concerning, given the US Permanent Representative to the UN’s perplexing assertion during a previous Security Council session on Gaza (where Washington abstained) that the resolution is non-binding. 

Doubts abound regarding the faithful implementation of any steps agreed upon under this proposal. I share these concerns and have consistently argued that resolving the Gaza crisis necessitates addressing the root issue of the Israeli occupation. This approach is the only viable path to ending the cycle of violence. 

Nonetheless, I contend that USR 2735 holds potential if completed and implemented with due diligence. The resolution’s key elements in its initial phases – calls for an “immediate and comprehensive ceasefire,” a “total cessation of hostilities,” and a “complete withdrawal of Israeli forces” – though couched in vague terms like “by agreement of the parties,” are critically important. 

Equally significant and often overlooked is that the same resolution adopted by the Security Council on June 10 categorically rejects any attempts to alter the Gaza Strip’s demographic or territorial status, including measures that would reduce its territory. These affirmations are crucial in light of Israel’s illegal establishment of security zones within Gaza’s perimeter, its control of the Philadelphi Corridor, and the creation of security routes that fragment the Gaza’s territory. 

Moreover, the Security Council’s reaffirmation of its commitment to a two-state solution – where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, coexist peacefully within secure and recognized borders – is of paramount importance. The international community and the Arab world must recognize that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories has persisted for nearly eight decades, particularly since 1967. 

UN status quo often solidifies into de facto realities, a painful lesson evidenced in the Middle East. While addressing pressing military and humanitarian concerns in Gaza is critical, it is equally vital to ensure that the crisis does not morph into another permanent, potentially violent status quo. 

I am gravely concerned that we are veering toward a perilous path, with Israel forcefully seizing territory and distinctly separating Gaza from the West Bank, together long considered the Palestinian state. This precarious status could become the new norm, even if an agreement is reached between Hamas and Israel. 

The current political landscape between Israelis and Palestinians does not inspire confidence in making resolute decisions, particularly regarding war and peace. The looming US presidential election in November 2024 further complicates strategic decision-making, distorting an already biased outlook. 

Irresponsible decisions now will have enduring consequences for all parties involved. Israel and Hamas must publicly commit to a two-state solution and renounce any demographic or territorial changes in Gaza. The UN Security Council, alongside UN bodies like the Economic and Social Council, WHO, WFP, UNRWA, UNHCR, and other relevant entities, should address these commitments and report transparently to the UN, the Security Council, and other involved parties. These reports should be integral to reviewing the resolution’s implementation.

Hamas has welcomed UN Security Council Resolution 2735, implicitly agreeing to its three main points. However, greater clarity on its commitment to these points would be beneficial. Conversely, Israel’s silence on this matter has only deepened the ambiguity surrounding its intentions. 

Therefore, Tel Aviv’s clear and unambiguous declaration of its commitment to the resolution’s provisions is crucial. It is noteworthy that when the Oslo Accords were signed, Yasser Arafat, as PLO chairman, recognized Israel’s statehood. Therefore, no further steps are required from Mahmoud Abbas. 

Israel reciprocated by recognizing the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians, so additional assurances are not necessary. The current Israeli government’s staunch opposition to the two-state solution should not deter the Security Council, including the US, from adhering to this pivotal issue. 

We must learn from history’s painful lessons: the subjugation and occupation of peoples foster anger and insecurity that no arsenal of weapons can quell. Asymmetric power dynamics and unequal rights exacerbate conflicts, extending beyond combatants to threaten civilians and societal stability. Furthermore, actions and statements by Israeli officials defy the vision of a two-state solution, reflecting illegal and prohibited territorial and demographic changes.

Such actions must not be condoned. Security Council Resolution 2735 should be viewed as a comprehensive framework that must be fully adopted and implemented. This includes halting any territorial changes in Gaza and steadfastly pursuing Palestinian-Israeli peace. – Nabil Fahmy

Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb.